ON THE "QUERY OF A MAGISTRATE"

ON THE SITUATION OF THE ALTAR OF INCENSE...

A DAY AT THE SEVEN CHURCHES AT GLENDALOUGH.

104

..107

..110

. ib.

ib.

..113

125

IRVING ON THE INCARNATION-HALDANE IN REPLY....

DOMESTIC RELIGIOUS INTELLIGENCE....

.133

...152

Popery in Ireland. Popish Fanaticism. Society for superseding the

Necessity, and improving the Condition, of Climbing Boys.

WILLIAM CURRY, JUN. AND CO. DUBLIN,

AND

HURST, CHANCE, AND CO. LONDON.

SOLD ALSO BY ALL THE BOOKSELLERS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM,

Printed by Bentham and Hardy.

are properly prohibited by law from doing it. But, with respect to the authority and jurisdiction which bishops possess over particular dioceses, our Church holds, that it is conferred not in one uniform manner, not jure divino, but jure humano—sometimes from one source and in one manner, at other times from another source and in a different manner, according to the regulations of the supreme legislative power in each place, if that shall think proper to interfere. In some places the appointment of the bishop of a diocese has been made by election of the lay-members of the same church-in others, of the clergy of that church, or of the clergy of the diocese generally. In other cases, the bishops of the province or kingdom have elected to the vacant see; in other cases, a metropolitan bishop has nominated; and in others, the chief civil magistrate, or some other lay patron. It is needless to discuss which of these modes of appointment is the most expedient. It is sufficient to say, that none can claim a preference, jure divino, and that the mode which still prevails in any country, must, as we have said, depend on the legislature of that country, either proscribing it or permitting it.

Such are the views of the members of our church respecting the jus divinum of bishops in their orders, and their jus humanum in their diocesan authority and jurisdiction; but to these are opposed the views of the Romanists. These maintain at least those who are attached to the court of Rome maintain (for there are different opinions entertained by others)-that the bishop of Rome possesses, jure divino, the nomination to all vacant bishopricks; and that others can only exercise it in virtue of his concession. This was resolutely denied by Henry VIII. and Edward VI. who insistedthe latter (or rather his ministers) in particular-that the right of nomination belonged to the sovereign of the country, or to those unto whom he (not the Pope) should concede it. It was a jus humanum, and, as such, vested in the supreme civil magistracy. To establish this contested claim, the king insisted that the bishops should surrender their episcopal authority and jurisdiction-not their orders to him, as the source from whence it flowed; that Cranmer, for example, should admit that, though he was a bishop of Christ's church, jure divino, by episcopal consecration; he was archbishop of Canterbury, jure humano, by the king's authority. This admission was made by all the English and Irish bishops at that time, and has since, except during the reign of Mary, been constantly recognized. It is true, that we have not, now-a-days, any such appointments of bishops to dioceses, during the king's pleasure, as there were in the reign of Edward. We are glad that there are not. We question if, under any circumstances, such appointments could have been expedient; and we are sure that, whatever reasons for them may have been supposed to exist then, none can exist now. If the judges should be independent of the crown, as it is on all hands admitted that they ought to be, and enjoy their posts quamdiu se bene gesserint, with much better rea

Ano

son should the bishops be so too. But though we consider such appointments as highly inexpedient, and therefore, in a matter of such moment, improper, we cannot admit that the fact of their having been once made is any proof of the rights of the church having been surrendered. The appointment resting with the crown may be made, either for life (good behaviour being presumed) or for a limited number of years, (as our colonial bishops are appointed now,) or until a specified contingency, or during pleasure. If made in any of the last-mentioned manners, the emeritus, or deprived bishop, will remain a bishop generally, though without a diocese in which he may act as such, and without the authority and jurisdiction which are generally annexed to the order of a bishop. Such was the late Bishop of Nova Scotia, who died in England, we believe in the last year. But such instances do not often occur, and when they do occur they attract little observation; and this is one reason why the distinction between the order and the station of a bishop is so frequently overlooked, while in the case of the inferior clergy it is observed by every one. ther reason, and perhaps a more powerful one, is, that, in the case of a bishop, the office and station have but one name--in the case of the inferior clergy they have distinct names. We say that such a person is a presbyter, or that he is in priest's orders, and no one thinks that we thereby ascribe to him any station, in which he may perform the duties of a presbyter. It is true, that he cannot be ordained a presbyter, without having been nominated to some station; but having been ordained, he may cease to hold that station, and we often meet with presbyters who have no station in the church whatever. If, however, he have a station, it has a distinct name; we do not say, he is presbyter of A,' but he is Curate of A,' or 'Rector of B,' or 'Dean of C.' Now, in the case of a bishop, the distinction between order and station is exactly the same; but because there is but one name for the two, it is very generally disregarded. We say, that a person is a bishop, and is the Bishop of D; our only mode of distinguishing between the two things is by annexing to the word bishop, when used to express jurisdiction, the title which expresses the temporal rank which is, in this country, attached to the jurisdiction. Thus, we say, 'Dr. Mant is a bishop'-' he is the Lord Bishop of Down and Connor.'

We cannot leave this subject, which we have dwelt on more than we should otherwise have done, on account of its peculiar interest at the present time, without observing how accurately our statesmen have attended to this distinction. While we admit the validity of the orders conferred in the Church of Rome, and of course admit the bishops of that church to be really bishops, we deny them to possess any jurisdiction as such in this country.Some have spoken of this as inconsistent; and have said, that the admission of the order implies the admission of the jurisdiction. But, even in our own church, we do not admit that the conferring of orders confers jurisdiction. If bishops of our

own church were to consecrate a presbyter a bishop, of their own motion, without his being appointed by competent authority to a diocese, he would unquestionably be a bishop: they would be subject to punishment for having consecrated him; but the consecration would be valid, and he would be to all intents and purposes a bishop, without, however, having any authority or jurisdiction as such. He would be in the situation in which we admit the Romish bishops to be; he would be a bishop, but not the bishop of any diocese. They are bishops-heretical ones, indeed; but as the ancient church admitted the Arian, Nestorian, and Donatist bishops to have valid orders, so we admit them to be validly consecrated bishops; but we deny that they possess any jurisdiction as bishops in this country;-out of it, they may have sees, if the Pope has them at his disposal-we care not whether he has or not. But here, we are decided in maintaining, he has none to give; and if any one attempt to exercise the jurisdiction of a bishop, in virtue of his pretended gift, he is liable to punishment; nay, by a late act, if he even assume the name of it, he subjects himself to a penalty. Dr. Doyle is a bishop: if it be necessary to describe him more particularly, he is the Romish Bishop AT Carlow;' but he is not a bishop (with any qualification or without one) or Kildare and Leighlin, or of any diocese in Ireland.

The king's supremacy is another subject on which much misrepresentation has prevailed, as well among the Dissenters, who affect to deny any supremacy, as among the Romanists, who claim it for the Pope. The king, they say, is "the head" of the Church by law established; and they then insist, that this title shall be explained, as they may choose to understand it; that is, in an obnoxious sense, which it was never intended to convey. To this unfair proceeding, Mr. Cumming replies as follows:

"The king is not now, even by name, the Head of the Church. The statute by which Henry VIII. was recognised by this title was repealed in the reign of Mary, and the title was never since restored. Owing to the prejudices which designing men excited in the minds of the people, by an improper use of the term, that of 'chief governor' was substituted in its place in the reign of Elizabeth. Our opponents (Mr. Cumming proceeds) should have known this, for since the strength of their objection lies in the sound of a word, they ought to speak correctly.”—p. 72.

To many of our readers, we dare say, this information, which we have ascertained to be correct, will be new. The king is constantly spoken of by Romanists and Dissenters as the head of the English Church at this day. Yet that title was never borne except by three sovereigns-of which three only one was a Protestant. It was granted by parliament to the king, in the reign of Henry VIII. borne by him and his son Edward, and his daughter Mary, until the acts passed for restoring the spiritual jurisdiction to the Pope; and it has never been re-granted-it is not a title which now be longs to the king. He is chief governor,' but not 'head.' We do not think, indeed, that more was meant by the latter title than

by the former; but it was more liable to misrepresentation. The supremacy which the king now possesses, is the supreme jurisdiction over all manner of persons, and in all manner of causes. The Romish clergy desired to be free from the jurisdiction of the king's courts, and to be only subject to judges of the Pope's appointment; but all persons, ecclesiastical as well as lay, are now amenable to the king's temporal courts for temporal offences.-Again, in the case of ecclesiastical causes, the Pope claimed to have the appointment, directly or indirectly, of the inferior judges, and to be himself the judge in the last resort. Of this jurisdiction he has been deprived; and the king is now the fountain of justice, as well in ecclesiastical as in civil causes.

This is all that a Protestant means by asserting the king's supremacy; and unless it be pretended that the Romish clergy are recognized by our laws as the Pope's subjects, and that they are not amenable to our courts of justice for any crimes they may commit; or that the decrees of our ecclesiastical courts are invalid unless sanctioned by the Pope, and that an appeal from them to his paramount authority is permitted, we do not see how the fact can be denied. A lawyer must know, that if he was defending a priest in a temporal court, he could not plead in bar to the indictment, that his client was not subject to the court's jurisdiction; and he must also know that the decrees of the Pope's officers can be enforced in no court in this kingdom, and that the decrees of the ecclesiastical courts can only be appealed against to the king in Chancery, and not to any foreign tribunal. Knowing these facts, he cannot assert the existence of the Pope's ecclesiastical authority in this country, without the greatest ignorance as to what is meant by that authority; a degree of ignorance, indeed, so great, that it can be surpassed by no conceivable degree of impudence in the manner of making the assertion.

(To be continued.)

FOREIGN RELIGIOUS INTELLIGENCE.

INDIA.

Suttee prevented. On reaching the ground, we found a vast concourse of people assembled to witness the horrid scene, waiting with great anxiety for the (English) magistrate's permission to to allow the Suttee to take place. During this interval every endeavour was made to induce the misguided and infatuated woman to abandon her resolution of destroying herself. Protection and support were promised to her and her family, provided she would relinquish her horrid purpose. She rejected every

proposal, however, with disdain, but with mildness, obstinately bent on selfdestruction. When the Darogab arrived from the city, she expressed the greatest delight, and with a firm step, and mind undaunted, repaired to the banks of the Ganges, where the pile was raised. On reaching the river, she went through the ceremony of bathing with the body of her deceased husband, changed her dress, distributed her ornaments among her female relatives and friends, receiving in return, from the Brahmins who surrounded her, garlands